Quoting Fallap (Reply 1):As an aircraft technician (student) I'm somewhat surprised that you can make such an extensive repair to the wing. I thought a whole new wing would have been needed.

I departed PEK today 1335 local time on SU with quite some mixed feelings. I hope they'll find something soon, for the sake of the relatives:-(

As a student technician, you should at least know that aircraft structures are a series of panels, sections and ribs, which make up the unit as a whole (in this case, the wing). Since these sections are riveted together, the affected section(s) can have the rivets drilled out from the damaged area, and have new component parts either fabricated at depot, or shipped from the manufacturer. I did this a lot on military aircraft when I was in the US Navy. Jet blast deflector plates on A-6 Intruders were especially common, and those we fabricated right in the shop.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 30):Yes, also if the 40 minutes of flight timeline is correct the aircraft would be reaching top of climb which is where you would expect a barometric pressure activated device to detonate.

The take-off weight of this flight was likely to be sub 230t. At 230t, it will take less than 20min for a GE90 777 to climb to FL350. A RR powered 777 will match or perhaps even better this.

Most of the news channels have plotted the G/C track from KUL-PEK. This is more likely the intended routing.
The 2nd image is the area where contact was apparently lost, near BITOD perhaps? This location is only 44min after takeoff time based on normal 777-200ER climb/cruise speeds.

Quoting Fallap (Reply 1):As an aircraft technician (student) I'm somewhat surprised that you can make such an extensive repair to the wing. I thought a whole new wing would have been needed.

Quoting Surfpunk (Reply 3):As a student technician, you should at least know that aircraft structures are a series of panels, sections and ribs, which make up the unit as a whole (in this case, the wing). Since these sections are riveted together, the affected section(s) can have the rivets drilled out from the damaged area, and have new component parts either fabricated at depot, or shipped from the manufacturer. I did this a lot on military aircraft when I was in the US Navy. Jet blast deflector plates on A-6 Intruders were especially common, and those we fabricated right in the shop.

Yeah and if we go there replacing the wing is actually much more difficult (more attachment points, needs to "dry dock" the plane, etc.) and is likely to yield a poorer result, for a lot more money.

Quoting Surfpunk (Reply 3):As a student technician, you should at least know that aircraft structures are a series of panels, sections and ribs, which make up the unit as a whole (in this case, the wing). Since these sections are riveted together, the affected section(s) can have the rivets drilled out from the damaged area, and have new component parts either fabricated at depot, or shipped from the manufacturer. I did this a lot on military aircraft when I was in the US Navy. Jet blast deflector plates on A-6 Intruders were especially common, and those we fabricated right in the shop.

You're right, but don't forget that apart from the visible part of damage, there is an invisible part as well which could end up in a catastrophic fatigue later on. The stress of that damage have gone much further than what initially expected and IIRC a wing is a primary structure and therefore in these cases more attention should be paid.

I remember some cases of damage of fuselage structure but as long as the damage was done in a secondary structure and under certain parameters of size and deepness it were much less critical than in primary structures, which required a full change and extensive check of the even non damaged area...

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 7):From the thread no. 3
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 30):
Yes, also if the 40 minutes of flight timeline is correct the aircraft would be reaching top of climb which is where you would expect a barometric pressure activated device to detonate.

The take-off weight of this flight was likely to be sub 230t. At 230t, it will take less than 20min for a GE90 777 to climb to FL350. A RR powered 777 will match or perhaps even better this.

In one of the earlier parts of this thread, Zeke, who flies regularly in that area stated that it is usual to be held low by air traffic restrictions on this route during climb-out. This could explain an increased time to altitude.

Quoting Steelyman (Reply 16):You're right, but don't forget that apart from the visible part of damage, there is an invisible part as well which could end up in a catastrophic fatigue later on. The stress of that damage have gone much further than what initially expected and IIRC a wing is a primary structure and therefore in these cases more attention should be paid.

I remember some cases of damage of fuselage structure but as long as the damage was done in a secondary structure and under certain parameters of size and deepness it were much less critical than in primary structures, which required a full change and extensive check of the even non damaged area...

Very true. I was just explaining how it would be quite possible to replace the affected wing section, as opposed to having to replace the entire wing. I am almost 25 years separated from my airframe days in the Navy, and I never did make that a career in civil aviation, so I am by no means a professional.

Quoting Beta (Reply 257):Assuming the wreckage will be found, and all the relevant mechanical parts are recovered, the question is: Who will provide the bulk of the technical investigation?

Malaysia will lead, China and US will do their own investigation while working with Malaysian authorities IMO.

Quoting Beta (Reply 257):2. Malaysia/Singapore: Malaysia probably has jurisdiction over the investigation, but can they do it? I don't know if Malaysia is in better position than Vietnam to do this sort of thing.

There is no question they will lead the investigation. Any equipment that they need can be provided by compassionate governments. Just look at how many governments have sent aircraft and boats at this point Vietnam, Singapore, US, China, etc.

Quoting Beta (Reply 257):The added bonus is the Brits would appear less "sensitive" to the PRC's pride.

The Brits certainly have a rockier past with China than the US does.

Quoting Beta (Reply 257):5. US: no question about the equipments and experiences, and the willingness to aid. But probably a bit too "sensitive" to the Chinese.

China would not have a say on how involved the US is in this process and I am not even that sure it would be that big of a deal anyway. This wouldn't be the Chinese asking the US for help as the aircraft is US made the FAA will be heavily involved regardless and as the aircraft operates extensively in the US the FAA will be involved. I bet they are already en-route if not on-site.

Quoting ajhYXE (Reply 22):How much damage could an uncontained engine failure cause in a worst-case scenario (i.e. worse than UA232 or QF32)? Does it have potential to bring down an aircraft with little or no opportunity to recover?

It most probably has. A >100kg titanium part of an engine travelling faster than the speed of sound penetrating the fuselage at cruise altitude would cause an rapid decompression. Add the force of the air stream, an airframe could possibly break up.

To go to PRC with passport not belonging to the owner - generally falls in following categories:

1 - Person is travelling with knowledge of the Chinese authorities
2 - Person is travelling under sponsorship of an external agency (unlikely - a new password will be granted instead of a stolen one)
3 - A criminal (why?)

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 20):China would not have a say on how involved the US is in this process and I am not even that sure it would be that big of a deal anyway. This wouldn't be the Chinese asking the US for help as the aircraft is US made the FAA will be heavily involved regardless and as the aircraft operates extensively in the US the FAA will be involved. I bet they are already en-route if not on-site.

tortugamon

also US citizens were on board; wouldn't that trigger an automatic NTSB involvement?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 20):
Malysia will lead, China and US will do their own investigation while working with Malaysian authorities IMO.

Is location of the crash in Vietnamese waters? If so, Vietnam wouldn't have primary control of the investigation, with involvement from Malaysia, the US, and the UK? If it was international waters, Malaysia authorities would take the lead.

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 32):Is location of the crash in Vietnamese waters? If so, Vietnam wouldn't have primary control of the investigation, with involvement from Malaysia, the US, and the UK? If it was international waters, Malaysia authorities would take the lead.

To go to PRC with passport not belonging to the owner - generally falls in following categories:

1 - Person is travelling with knowledge of the Chinese authorities
2 - Person is travelling under sponsorship of an external agency (unlikely - a new password will be granted instead of a stolen one)
3 - A criminal (why?)

And it was newly reported that one Russian guy appeared on the name list was NOT the passport owner. The owner also lost his passport before, and was not on board MH370.

The same reason why a ground-based radar will cover a smaller part of the airspace compared to an airborne radar.

Measured in degrees (from the sonar's viewpoint), the sonar will cover the same amount of seafloor, but measured in square meters of sea floor, the coverage is much better when the sonar operates high above the seafloor.

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 35):How clear is the water? Might be able to see it

Probably not very clear in those parts of the world, yet with the seabed being so shallow there should be plenty of floating debris. A 777 is not that small, containing thousands of floating parts which should show up on the surface.

I did notice that the oil slick reports are referenced to be 87 miles south of Thổ Chu Island which means the approximate lat/long is 8° 0'4.48"N / 103°31'50.67"E per Google Earth and the water there is only about 100 feet deep also per Google Earth which means the recovery of debris should be rather straightforward I would think. Sad stuff indeed. Thoughts and prayers go out to the families involved.

But a MAD array will have the same problem, won't it? They're effective in a very narrow field, I believe. I guess the benefit is that you can cover the area much faster with an aircraft, but a MAD array won't tell you what something is. Sidescanning sonar can image it for you.

Quoting rampart (Reply 43):I agree, but perhaps the moderators, starting the new thread, or the first poster in the new thread, could post a quick 5 bullet points of the items most discussed in the previous thread(s).

I actually think that's a really good idea for these quick-developing threads.

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 37):I'm not sure, either. I'd think sidescanning sonar would be plenty helpful, even at that depth. It's used at shallow depths for mapping channels for dredging.

I confess I was thinking more about detecting the signal from the DFDR rather than looking for wreckage. As I recall, one of the problems in detecting any wreckage or the signals from the DFDR of AF447 was that the sea floor was quite "mountainous". I guess the most difficult scenario would be looking in shallow waters with a "mountainous" sea floor. That's probably where MADet al might earn its keep.

I think that this event is of course a tragedy and deserves our sympathy, concern, and condolences to those directly affected

But here we are approaching 1000 posts, with very little additional information than that available at the start of the first thread! Plane down, various timing alternatives postulated, crash site not found, no explanation.

I'm sorry to say, but I find threads on this site concerning any fresh catastrophe to be dominated by posts that are superficial, grief-ridden, and full of all sorts of conjecture. It is not very respectful of those directly affected to pay lip service to their suffering, then dive into all weird and wonderful speculation as to what happened. It actually saddens me when I read most of these threads

I enjoy a.net when it is mainly fact-based, with debate and discussion over the facts and what might evolve. Maybe we could all restrict posts here to new facts that emerge, before more endless speculation - which could be had in a thread for that purpose - "How could airliners crash from FL350 at night?" , not to do with the actual disappearance of this MH370 flight and its impact on those directly involved

Canadian network CBC was reporting last night that MH 370 may have landed in Vietnam. Then this morning reports that it's still missing but has not been reported as crashed despite oil slick sightings.

In the AF447 case, it was a towed sonar, with a lot of help from Bayesian statistics.

Here, with water depths of 50 to 80 meters, a sonar wouldn't be that helpful. Would they sweep the ocean using P-3 Orion aircraft using magnetic anomaly detectors?

This is incorrect- AF 447 was found using AUVs not towed sonars. Also their statistics lead them on a two year search - if they would have looked under the last known position from the ACARS they would have found the wreck quite quickly.

In this case I'm sure they will use whatever means they have available but there are several new sonar technologies that they could use to improve their search. Being that it is so shallow I assume they will used towed sonars once they have a pretty good idea where the plane is. They could use AUVs or SAS sonars.

Also with sidescan sonars - they need to be towed near the surface (10% of sonar range) - if they fly high as you suggested then it will leave data gaps. It will be interesting to see how they go about the search - first off they need a better idea of where the plane went in!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 20):Quoting Beta (Reply 257):
Assuming the wreckage will be found, and all the relevant mechanical parts are recovered, the question is: Who will provide the bulk of the technical investigation?

Malysia will lead, China and US will do their own investigation while working with Malysian authorities IMO.

There is no official reason why the Chinese have any say in anything. Just because their citizens were involved gives them no specific rights to be allowed as part of the official investigative agencies. They may be asked to be involved by the Malaysian authorities and to the extent that if this does become a possible terrorism/criminal act, as the final destination, their security agencies may be involved but there is no mechanism that says they have a right to be involved in the accident investigation.

[/quote]

Quoting lh648 (Reply 33):Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 30):
also US citizens were on board; wouldn't that trigger an automatic NTSB involvement?

No. Origin of the aircraft will.

Exactly

If the KL government needed help for the technical investigation, besides US involvement due to the plane being a Boeing, I could see them approaching the Australians before any other western agency or the Chinese.

I am quite curious about this stuff. The logistics and operations of searches and investigations like these are fascinating to me. Not that I like seeing these situations come up, but I kind of wish I did this stuff for a living instead of what I do now.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 50):I enjoy a.net when it is mainly fact-based, with debate and discussion over the facts and what might evolve. Maybe we could all restrict posts here to new facts that emerge, before more endless speculation - which could be had in a thread for that purpose

If you want the above you should go to NTSB and read their reports that appear 2 years after a crash. In the meantime I enjoy reading various theories, but also learning about some possible scenarios and technical aspects which could bring an airliner down like this.

Quoting s5daw (Reply 57):How soon after AF447 disappearance did the general public know about ACARS messages? Is it possible / probable that Malaysian has information we don't?

My recollection is that we knew about them immediately; they were part of the initial speculation. And as I remember, the initial consensus turned out to be fairly close to the cause as ultimately determined.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 15):According to the WSJ article, there was also a group of 24 painters and calligraphers on board that was returning from an exhibition in Malaysia. All very sad indeed.

I was with a photographer friend a few hours ago. He was telling me that he very recently gave a demonstration on light painting to a group of over twenty China painters/calligraphers in Singapore. They were impressed with his techniques and many gave him souvenirs of paintings and calligraphy works. Could be the same people. I just text my friend but its now 3am over here.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 29):Here, with water depths of 50 to 80 meters, a sonar wouldn't be that helpful. Would they sweep the ocean using P-3 Orion aircraft using magnetic anomaly detectors?

I believe the US already deployed one from Thailand or Japan. I wonder how useful it will be with the aircraft presumably being on the bottom of the relatively shallow ocean.

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 32):Is location of the crash in Vietnamese waters? If so, Vietnam wouldn't have primary control of the investigation, with involvement from Malaysia, the US, and the UK? If it was international waters, Malaysia authorities would take the lead.

If it is in Vietnam waters then I could see them wanted to be involved (as they currently are) but its Malaysia that is the prime participant here because its where they aircraft is from, where its registered, and its a state-owned airline so they have very interested in the outcome/results and the impact on that airline and Vietnam hasn't had any damage and didn't lose any citizens.

Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 30):also US citizens were on board; wouldn't that trigger an automatic NTSB involvement?

I have been saying FAA and meaning NTSB. I don't think less than a handful of American's automatically triggers NTSB but I could be wrong. I believe NTSB's charter is more geared towards investigating accidents involving US Made aircraft and components. They are just the investigative unit. No Americans were involved in AF447 and the aircraft was Airbus and the NTSB was still involved (GE Engines).

Quoting trex8 (Reply 58):There is no official reason why the Chinese have any say in anything.

I think you are right. However, I suspect they will be involved regardless of what they are legally allowed to be.

As for the sonar search I can shed some light into how past searches were done. Twa 800 might be the most similar - of course there was a very good idea on where the plane went in. SAIC was tasked with mapping the wreck and they chose to use a scanning laser (the focus system). I knew some of the people that worked it and they were able to mobalize the system very quickly. The map of the crash site was good enough that it helped with the investigation as they were able to put each piece of plane to a location on the sea floor. The focus system is still around but it isn't used much.

As for this accident we will need to see if there is a obvious area for the crash. I'm sure there are ROV vessels around due to the oil industry in that area. I'd just hire one of those vessels to take a quick took see to verify the wreck- then bring in the sonar mapping stuff later. If the plane has just gone missing and a large sonar program would be needed then I'd go with AUVs or the newest technology- a SAS system. The SAS is towed but has awesome range and good resolution. There is a company in Seattle that has one.

Quoting harim (Reply 27):To go to PRC with passport not belonging to the owner - generally falls in following categories:

1 - Person is travelling with knowledge of the Chinese authorities
2 - Person is travelling under sponsorship of an external agency (unlikely - a new password will be granted instead of a stolen one)
3 - A criminal (why?)

There could be many other reasons since we don't know the exact origin of the person carrying the stolen passport. They could be Chinese illegal immigrats in Europe who need that EU passport in order to return to Europe. They could be Taiwanse wanting to do business in China. They could be illega;l immigrants on the way to the U.S.A via PEK. There are countless reasons.

1) If the petrol slicks being reported are attributable to MH 370, that would suggest the plane was relatively intact at low altitude, as the fuel would vaporize at altitude.

2) While failures related to previous wing damage might not cause the whole plane to come apart, it's still concerning. AA 191 had uncontrolled retraction of leading edge slats due to loss of hydraulics that caused it to stall and roll. I don't know how close hydraulic lines run to the damaged area, but it's worth keeping in mind.

3) It's hard to imagine that a pitot-tube related issue would not result in distress call in crowded airspace less than 1 hr from shore.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 48):
Quoting dtfg (Reply 38):
And it was newly reported that one Russian guy appeared on the name list was NOT the passport owner. The owner also lost his passport before, and was not on board MH370.

Can you provide a link to that source? There was only one Russian on board, and he was, unlike the fake Austrian and fake Italian passenger not one of the seven pax ticketed by CZ.

I copied this pic from a Chinese news website who reported the case. Anyone reads Russian confirm it?

Quoting acabgd (Reply 62):In the meantime I enjoy reading various theories, but also learning about some possible scenarios and technical aspects which could bring an airliner down like this.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 50):Maybe we could all restrict posts here to new facts that emerge, before more endless speculation - which could be had in a thread for that purpose - "How could airliners crash from FL350 at night?" , not to do with the actual disappearance of this MH370 flight and its impact on those directly involved

It would be more acceptable if you quoted the balanced proposal in my earlier post

This thread would be more true to its title if it remained focussed on the facts around flight MH370 that departed KUL yesterday. Open the new thread I suggested, and speculate to your heart's content there

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 67):I have been saying FAA and meaning NTSB. I don't think less than a handful of American's automatically triggers NTSB but I could be wrong. I believe NTSB's charter is more geared towards investigating accidents involving US Made aircraft and components.

Correct. Since it is a US made aircraft involved here; the NTSB is triggered. Just a handful of americans being among the passengers does not trigger NTSB involvement unless of course there were US made components on the aircraft.

Quoting btfarrwm (Reply 71):2) While failures related to previous wing damage might not cause the whole plane to come apart, it's still concerning. AA 191 had uncontrolled retraction of leading edge slats due to loss of hydraulics that caused it to stall and roll. I don't know how close hydraulic lines run to the damaged area, but it's worth keeping in mind.

At cruise the wing is in a clean config. Loss of hyd. power will not change this config.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 70):There could be many other reasons since we don't know the exact origin of the person carrying the stolen passport. They could be Chinese illegal immigrats in Europe who need that EU passport in order to return to Europe. They could be Taiwanse wanting to do business in China. They could be illega;l immigrants on the way to the U.S.A via PEK. There are countless reasons.

Those passports are on western names. It will be highly suspicious for Chinese person to use them.

"UPDATE [2:53am]: The New Straits Times reports that Malaysia's Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) will be searching for the missing Malaysia Airlines MH370 plane off the coast of Kelantan. The search operations come after a small piece of canvas was found by personnel involved in the search and rescue operations."

I tried searching for any news regarding this, but couldn't find anything. Has anyone else seen something along these lines?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 67):I believe the US already deployed one from Thailand or Japan. I wonder how useful it will be with the aircraft presumably being on the bottom of the relatively shallow ocean.

It came from Kadena in Japan.

The shallower the depth, the more effective a MAD array is, I believe.

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 66):One thing I have learned is to keep your passport ultra safe if you ever visit Thailand

For that matter everywhere else too as accidents do happen regardless of where you are. A couple of years ago just in Toronto my wife was in a hurry and didnt zip her purse. A few minutes later she realized it and zipped it. Her passport was in there. When she zipped it all the way she checked things and everything was there. Not a problem but still that taught us a major lesson.

From what I have heard bars and nightclubs are major problem places s in some countries for possible thefts of money, wallets, passports etc. etc.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 63):My recollection is that we knew about them immediately; they were part of the initial speculation. And as I remember, the initial consensus turned out to be fairly close to the cause as ultimately determined.

Agree completely. Even though there were theories all over the place for AF447, looking back it was pretty impressive to see the community look at all the evidence, collaborate, and come up with what was very near to the conclusion of the French NTSB (forget the acronym).

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 66):One thing I have learned is to keep your passport ultra safe if you ever visit Thailand.

Seriously. I usually travel with it in my front jeans pocket, but I will make sure to in Thailand.

"Russian missed the plane disappeared from radar, because he had stolen passport

Among the passengers of Malaysian Airlines, which disappeared from the radar on Saturday night, there were Russian citizens. As it turned out, for the flight really was registered citizen of Russia, but he could not get on board the aircraft because he stole a passport. Recall that the plane was heading from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. On board the ship were 240 people."

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 63):My recollection is that we knew about them immediately; they were part of the initial speculation. And as I remember, the initial consensus turned out to be fairly close to the cause as ultimately determined.

If 777 had a non-catastrophic event... e.g. something like AF447, would it be expected to receive similar messages?

Yeah, what about Uighur's? Based on my understanding the Uighur people living in China are more closely related to Europeans than most other populations in the area... I wonder if they would potentially look Caucasian enough so that using European false identities would make sense?

If there's some terrorist group behind this the main suspect would definitely be those anti-Chinese Uighur groups. For them it would make sense to get foreign passports as I'm sure they are under special surveillance after recent terrorist attacks in China.

It's just hard to imagine why a state of art airliner like this, operated by experienced crew would disappear without any emergency call in rather busy airspace without an in flight breakup of some kind & these pax using false passports definitely give a feeling there's something very shady behind this.

Though then again indeed if this was a planned attack by some kind of a terrorist group one would indeed think we would know about their involvement already.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 74):Just a handful of americans being among the passengers does not trigger NTSB involvement unless of course there were US made components on the aircraft.

Right, that is my understanding. I wonder how mission critical the components has to be. I get the engines and the aircraft itself but I imagine its difficult to find an aircraft with more than 150 seats that doesn't have US made parts.

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 79):It came from Kadena in Japan.
The shallower the depth, the more effective a MAD array is, I believe.

Quoting pilotaydin (Reply 89):6. Terror group IMHO would have taken pride and claim by now

Lockerbie bombing never claimed (not by those who actually did it anyway)

Quoting UALWN (Reply 90):Ethnic Chinese people trying to board a plane holding Italian and Austrian passports with names like Luigi Maraldi and Christian Koze? It doesn't look very likely.

Don't know about Italy but in the US there are lots of adopted kids who are racially different to their parents. I had neighbors who are Norwegian background and had Korean adopted kids. Most of the "Asians" in my church are adopted by White Anglo Saxon Americans. Aren't there a significant number of Ethiopian descent and N African descent people in Italy these days? A "Mediterranean" looking Central Asian (if you believe the Ughur conspiracy) wouldn't stand out that much.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 95):Don't know about Italy but in the US there are lots of adopted kids who are racially different to their parents. I had neighbors who are Norwegian background and had Korean adopted kids. Most of the "Asians" in my church are adopted by White Anglo Saxon Americans. Aren't there a significant number of Ethiopian descent and N African descent people in Italy these days? A "Mediterranean" looking Central Asian (if you believe the Ughur conspiracy) wouldn't stand out that much.

Passports have photographs. And modern passports have photographs printed on them, not glued, so I don't think it's easy to replace the photo.

So there's no way of Uighur/Chinese using passport of the european without being suspicious.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 93):If the oil slick does belong to MH370, doesn't it seem too large to remain from an explosive event?

From what someone posted in the previous thread, I don't know if there's any certainty that it is actually oil/petrochemical in the water there, but rather, a bacterial bloom which looks like an oil slick. Unless there's been new information released that I haven't seen.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 91):If there's some terrorist group behind this the main suspect would definitely be those anti-Chinese Uighur groups. For them it would make sense to get foreign passports as I'm sure they are under special surveillance after recent terrorist attacks in China.

Do the PRC authorities, like the US, request airlines provide passenger id before the flight? If not and this is a suicide bombing why would a Uighur, even if known to the Chinese Public Security Bureau care if they aren't allowed entry or arrested on arrival in Beijing. They don't ever plan on reaching Beijing anyway. And an anonymous bombing does not help their cause.

Indeed - I have seen these blooms frequently and used to work on them. They're a type of blue-green algae (cyanobacterium) called Trichodesmium, which gets blown into wind-rows and floats to the surface, forming exactly what you see in that photo. This time of year, there are massive blooms in that region, so it's difficult to say what it is. The only give-away would be if the diffraction pattern (i.e. oil sheen) was there, then it's not likely to be Tricho.

For anyone that's interested, this type of cyanobacterial bloom is totally natural and is a huge part of nutrient dynamics in the tropical ocean. They are able to take nitrogen (from the atmosphere) and fix it into ammonium, which is then eaten by other algae and bacteria. In places where there is little nutrient available - like in this region - it's crucial for sustaining the food web.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 101):If the following chart is correct, the crash site is considerably off course.

This looks strange somehow. There were reports of radar facilities saying the plane made a left turn during descend ?
And also, if the communication loss was 2hrs into the flight, the crash site in this chart is about a further 20 - 30 minutes flight time from the position where reported communiction loss occurred.

This sounds curious. According to the text You copypasted, the lucky Russian guy had been checked in ('zaregistrirovan'/зарегистирован) yet he could not board the plane as his passport was stolen. This message actually makes strange sense in Russian for me as the only way I could read it is that 'the person checked in, then lost his passport, then could not fly) yet by mistake he got into the manifest. If I read this correctly, then this is irrelevant to the disaster as the guy was just left behind because of the lost passport and his seat was left empty. then some god has further plans for him.

Shallow water in the probable crash area will be a blessing for the investigators when compared to the challenges presented by AF447. Wreckage and as well as the CVR and the flight recorder should be easily recovered.

Quoting cfischaleck (Reply 107):And also, if the communication loss was 2hrs into the flight, the crash site in this chart is about a further 20 - 30 minutes flight time from the position where reported communication loss occurred.

Communication was lost around 40 minutes into flight. Aircraft was reported missing 2 hours after departure. (as per reports in previous 3 threads).

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 29): from Bayesian statistics.Here, with water depths of 50 to 80 meters, a sonar wouldn't be that helpful. Would they sweep the ocean using P-3 Orion aircraft using magnetic anomaly detectors?

That might work if there are significant parts with ferrous metals (e.g. landing gear struts, etc.) The vast majority of the aircraft structure, however, is devoid of ferrous metals. Aluminum is not magnetic, and I don't think aircraft grade alloys add much, if any, iron to the mix

Quoting s5daw (Reply 87):If 777 had a non-catastrophic event... e.g. something like AF447, would it be expected to receive similar messages?

Apparently you have to subscribe to the service to get the messages; since we have not heard anything about them my suspicion is that MH did not. AF did.

Quoting pilotaydin (Reply 89):6. Terror group IMHO would have taken pride and claim by now

There is no universal terrorist handbook. Some do, some don't. Al Queda did not, nor did the Libyans who brought down PA103.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 93):If the oil slick does belong to MH370, doesn't it seem too large to remain from an explosive event?

It depends on the nature of the explosive event. If the plane disintegrated at altitude there would be little to no slick, as the fuel would vaporize before reaching the sea. If in fact the emergency message is real then the plane likely descended to low altitude before disintegrating, and it could have spread the fuel over a considerable distance. But it is hard to say just how the fuel would disperse without knowing how the plane met its end. If it plunged into the sea more or less intact it does seem that it is unlikely that it would spread this much.

Quoting ZKCIF (Reply 110):If I read this correctly, then this is irrelevant to the disaster as the guy was just left behind because of the lost passport and his seat was left empty. then some god has further plans for him.

A very sad day firstly as MH is my favourite carrier, and the MH 777 holds a special place as I flew it on the EWR-DXB-KUL v.v flights back in the early 2000s. The jet was lovingly called the "Super Rangers".

To speculate on your first question, MAS370 was heading northbound and the flight you point out, CPA659 is heading southbound. I'm sure the tracks are offset from one another, leading to the differences

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 119):The plane was not equipped with WIFI
As for phone calls, at 35000 feet over the water don't think they will be a signal.

However it could have been SATCOM equipped in which case as long as they can "see" the satellite they can make phone calls. Many 777's are equipped with SATCOM -- not sure about MAS.

Quoting flightsimboy (Reply 130):A very sad day firstly as MH is my favourite carrier, and the MH 777 holds a special place as I flew it on the EWR-DXB-KUL v.v flights back in the early 2000s. The jet was lovingly called the "Super Rangers".

Super Ranger was the name given to their first 777 9M-MRA for the round the world flight Seattle -- Kuala Lumpur -- Seattle in April of '97.

About the oil slick- in the photo I have seen on CNN there is a clear algal bloom BUT it also looks like there is a light oil sheen to the right to the photo. Could be a reflection in the window but thats what a oil sheen looks like offshore.

I just find it difficult to imagine either scenarios in the modern flying era: 1) mechanical malfunction (be it aircraft issue or due to crew caused), or 2) human cause like foul play. Given that it seems that the plane literally fell out of the sky, it makes it hard to imagine that the cabin crew didn't even get any time to issue any distress. Which leads to the second option, and it is also difficult to imagine with all the security we have now in any major airport, that security could be breached this significantly. Just astounded and puzzled! Don't know what to think.

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 83):
Why are Malaysians so concerned with ethnicity? The 12 crew were all Malaysians. Period.

The original question came from the previous thread from another poster who was saying there seemed to be 3 Chinese crew on this flight and I was merely answering him there were 5, not 3 and i also told him all the crew was Malaysian.

We are all proud Malaysian but at the same time we are not forgetting our roots. Just like some American would proudly tell other people they are American of German/Scottish descent and so on. So please do not make this into an issue when it isn't one to begin with.

Regarding the 'oil' trail - It has been found for some 10hrs or so by the rescue teams. I think that if it was something of evidence of the plane it had been investigated already imho. No news had been given regarding the oil slick, so I can hardly believe it has something to do with MAS730.

Besides. It looks like enourmously to that bacterial thingie posted earlier by a marine bioligist.

My biggest question is - DEBRIS? That's whats most boggling to me. I understand that AF447's debris took a while to locate, but due to the conditions and locations involved, shouldn't this debris be easier to find?

BTW - besides AF447, are there more examples of planes which were missing for some period of time?
Like Air India (bomb explosion) near Ireland, or Swissair near Halifax?
Or were those planes all located quickly?

Anyone have any info on the currents around there? Could the surface debris be floating away from the crash site? If that is the case..perhaps the searchers are close to the crash site (and location of larger pieces), but the easily surface debris is elsewhere.

For me I guess the most odd thing about it is that no trace of the aircraft has been found. It's a fairly busy area, they had all day to find some sort of wreckage, yet nothing has been found. It really is surprising.

Quoting Goodbye (Reply 141):For me I guess the most odd thing about it is that no trace of the aircraft has been found. It's a fairly busy area, they had all day to find some sort of wreckage, yet nothing has been found. It really is surprising.

Exactly.
Does anyone have info as to what areas have already been searched/current search patterns?

Quoting pvjin (Reply 75):Both of those people with false passports were booked through code share of a China Southern, maybe they believed they were going to fly on a Chinese airline, which would give a motive if this indeed was a result of a terrorist attack.

Sometimes you don't know what airline you will be flying on ahead of time. A couple of weeks ago I was booked on MH 9141 from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore, an A330. There was no mention on my reservation that it would be flown by a different airline. I tried to check in on line so I could select my seat. That didn't work, so I waited in the MH check-in line for 30 minutes, only to be told that my flight was on SilkAir. An A330 on SilkAir? I didn't think they had any. So I checked in with SilkAir, got my boarding pass with seat 49A, and went to gate C2 to wait for my SilkAir A330. Instead, a Singapore Airlines A330 pulled into the gate. That was my flight. I had no idea that I wasn't flying with Malaysia Airlines. So what happened in the quoted text could be possible.

With Swissair they found where the aircraft went down pretty quickly it was much closer to shore and they had a distress call to go off of for location. They had the FDR and CVR within a couple of days. With AI there was a ship on site within 2 hours of the crash.

The Moderator Crew understands this is a hot topic and there are many theories floating around. But please refrain from saying anything that may start battles. If you think it will stir the pot, it probably will.

Quoting 456 (Reply 152):BTW - besides AF447, are there more example of planes which were missing for some period of time?
Like Air India (bomb explosion) near Ireland, or Swissair near Halifax?

In the SR 111 case, the pilots had declared emergency and were followed by ATC. Of course it happened at 10:31 PM Atlantic time. During the following day, if not earlier, the crash site was found.

On Wikipedia's article about SR 111, citing TSB's report, it is said the aircraft hit the water with a force of about 350g at an estimated speed of 299 knots. Less than six minutes before impact the aircraft was flying at around 10,000 ft. The aircraft was disintegrated into millions of small pieces.

AI182's distressed condition was notified immediately by the Shannon ATC, when they disappeared off radar and failed to squawk, just minutes after a prior successful transponder notification. The window in that instance was mere minutes. Further, the Narita bombing at the same time pointed to Khalistani terrorism immediately. Thanksfully those terrorists have been neutralized now, and are nothing more than a loony fringe in parts of the west today.

MH370 seems to present conflicting last contact times, ranging from 45 minutes to 2hrs, which puts them anywhere within a huge swath between the Gulf of Thailand before the Cambodian/Vietnamese coast, and a little past Vietnam into the South China Sea.

I know this has been said but for there to be no communication it does seem like something catastrophic happened. One of the primary ways something like that happens involves an explosion/collision and I have checking flight radar and there are a decent amount of aircraft in this flight path. If there was a major explosion/collision you would think the resulting fireball would be noticeable to aircraft and boats on the relatively clear night but there have been no reports.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 154): know this has been said but for there to be no communication it does seem like something catastrophic happened. One of the primary ways something like that happens involves an explosion/collision and I have checking flight radar and there are a decent amount of aircraft in this flight path. If there was a major explosion/collision you would think the resulting fireball would be noticeable to aircraft and boats on the relatively clear night but there have been no reports.

There are many reasons that there was no Mayday. Everyone thinks catastrophic failure, which is possible, but it could be something completely different, such as the pilots forgetting, doing something else, or not getting to that point on the checklist. AF 477 never had a distress call - and we know there was no catastrophic failure.

From this angle you can see that the collision would have resulted in repairs to the outboard aileron, for those discussing the possibility that undetected damage or the repair might have resulted in a jammed aileron or somehow contributed to this event.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 154):If there was a major explosion/collision you would think the resulting fireball would be noticeable

Maybe that's a clue that there wasn't a big fireball. There are non-explosive failure mechanisms that could conceivably result in a sudden in-flight breakup, such as an un contained engine failure that severs a key structural member such as a wing spar or fuselage keel beam.

Think simple 777 crew with highly inexperienced fo plus an abnormal situation, doesn't take much to cause chaos in a cockpit no need for bombs terror and structural failures a simple fault is enough...

Regarding what has been reported as oil spill possibly coming from MH370 wreckage, I'm just going through TSB's report about SR 111 crash and in it it is said that: "Jet fuel was present on the surface of the water near the impact site for a few hours before evaporating." Is this common with jet fuel ? If so, more than 24 hours after MH370 disappearance not much if any must remain on the surface of the water, if this is where the aircraft ended.

Yeah just like TWA 800. No distress calls and no talks about anything regarding the catastrophe at hand. One second it's there, the next it's not. With flight 800 that was in a busy area so other pilots saw the explosion as well as people on the ground. Fuel continued to burn on the ocean surface so that was an was one to locate. This Malaysian flight was also apparently in a somewhat busy area for air traffic and sea. So far no reports of anyone seeing anything.

This Malaysian crash is just so mind boggling. As others have mentioned, no distress calls which would indicate it was catastrophic or atleast something going on to where pilots had no time to key the mic. Regardless if the aircraft broke up in the air or hit the sea intact, there has to be something floating. Even just a piece of paper...anything. So either nothing has been found yet because it's dark (soon to be light) and things will start being found soon, or somehow this aircraft was nowhere near where they are searching which IMO is also hard to fathom since they have atleast a somewhat general idea of where the aircraft would be.

Doesn't fuel on the surface of the ocean suggest a rather intact structure of the plane upon impact? I mean, if a plane breakes into pieces in mid air at cruise speed, I assume fuel would be vaporized to a great extend.

the U.S. Embassy said the 2:43 U.S. military bases stationed in Thailand U-Tapao SOS signal was listening to some of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 emergency call, said the aircraft cabin facing disintegration driver call, they want a forced landing .

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 154): I have checking flight radar and there are a decent amount of aircraft in this flight path. If there was a major explosion/collision you would think the resulting fireball would be noticeable to aircraft and boats on the relatively clear night but there have been no reports.

According to FR24, at the time MAS370 disappeared from coverage (1720Z, at FL350) the nearest airplanes were:

CES539, to the east and heading southwest, at FL360. Distance: 188 km (101 NM)
and
CES5093, to the west and heading southeast, at FL370. Distance: 160 km (86 NM).

I don't know how bright an explosion would appear at that distance. And also, one must consider the pilots of CES were looking out the window at the exact moment of the fact.

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 169):the U.S. Embassy said the 2:43 U.S. military bases stationed in Thailand U-Tapao SOS signal was listening to some of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 emergency call, said the aircraft cabin facing disintegration driver call, they want a forced landing .

Quoting trnswrld (Reply 163):Yeah just like TWA 800. No distress calls and no talks about anything regarding the catastrophe at hand. One second it's there, the next it's not. With flight 800 that was in a busy area so other pilots saw the explosion as well as people on the ground. Fuel continued to burn on the ocean surface so that was an was one to locate. This Malaysian flight was also apparently in a somewhat busy area for air traffic and sea. So far no reports of anyone seeing anything.

TWA 800 happened just before sunset, along the south coast of Long Island. This event happened sometime after midnight, local time, in international waters far from land I have flown to Singapore, and noted the number of ships moored there, but I don't think this part of the Pacific Ocean/Gulf of Thailand(?) is jam-packed with ships, and even if there was one or two within visual range, unless someone was out on deck and looking for something, the odds are pretty good that no one saw anything.

Quoting Ty134A (Reply 166):Doesn't fuel on the surface of the ocean suggest a rather intact structure of the plane upon impact? I mean, if a plane breakes into pieces in mid air at cruise speed, I assume fuel would be vaporized to a great extend.

I believe the section containing N739PA's fuel tanks remained relatively intact until it plowed in to Lockerbie. However given other evidence it appears that these "oil slicks" have nothing to do with MH370.

In regards to the ethnicity of potential (BIG emphasis on "potential") hijackers, would it be possible to use highly-realistic disguises or even cosmetic surgery to "pass" as someone else?

A small bomb carried into the passenger compartment could cause enough damage to cripple the plane, but not produce a fireball. And the explosion probably could not have been seen from very far away, as it would be within the plane and by the time the fuselage was breached the flash would have been over. The presence of an oil slick would indicate a large amount of fuel remaining, and hence no fuel for a fireball. Had there been one the fuel would have been consumed.

I feel so bad for the family members who have been at Kuala Lumpur and Beijing Airports for the last day and a half (or more) waiting for word on the fate of the plane. I hope MH is taking extremely good care of them.

I think I do see an oil slick in those pictures. Ignore the sea sawdust. I think you can also see a light oil slick in the photo. Particularly in the upper right corner of the pic. Of course that doesn't mean it's jet fuel.

AFAIK (which admittedly isn't too much) the supposed crash site isn't in the busiest shipping lanes in the region, but there still are a fair amount of ships out there (at a higher concentration near the coasts, of course).

Thanks, Viscount. So assuming a CFIT, it slammed into the water like AF447 and SR111, the fuel would end up floating but not burning. Have there been any accidents where an aircraft fell from altitude (TW800 was climbing, not at cruise) and the fuel was burning as a slick on the body of water?

Didn't see this so far...if its already been brought up just ignore:
According to many articles, the plane's most recent safety inspection was only 10 days ago. They Haven't specified as to What level of check it was (which matters more to what type of issues would've been caught). But that plus the final recorded flight data suggests to me that this doesn't have anything to do with maintenance (especially that wingtip).
Link: http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001...04579426353331913822?mg=reno64-wsj

Quoting Web500sjc (Reply 157):There are many reasons that there was no Mayday. Everyone thinks catastrophic failure, which is possible, but it could be something completely different, such as the pilots forgetting, doing something else, or not getting to that point on the checklist. AF 477 never had a distress call - and we know there was no catastrophic failure.

The AF477 crash was not a sudden event like this one seemed to be. I believe a little less than 15 minutes passed between the captain leaving and the pilots getting the false readings and the crash. As they say, aviate, navigate, communicate.

Reports are that this was a more dramatic thing. QF32 communicated with ATC pretty quickly after they had their major engine failure.

I agree that there are a lot of possible explanations here but I think no communication is telling.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 159):Maybe that's a clue that there wasn't a big fireball. There are non-explosive failure mechanisms that could conceivably result in a sudden in-flight breakup, such as an un contained engine failure that severs a key structural member such as a wing spar or fuselage keel beam.

True. Could be. THY981 didn't have a fireball but their depressurization was dramatic but they tried to communicate to ATC even if it was in Turkish. I assume there wouldn't be a language issue within 45 minutes of KUL.

Quoting danvs (Reply 170):CES539, to the east and heading southwest, at FL360. Distance: 188 km (101 NM)
and
CES5093, to the west and heading southeast, at FL370. Distance: 160 km (86 NM).

I don't believe Flight 24 picks up a high percentage of traffic in that region. Regardless I would think a fireball would be seen even from 86nm at nighttime. Supposed to be a clear night, I would think fuel on the ocean could bring attention as well.

Ultimately I don't think there was a fireball. And if you think that then I think it removes fuel tank explosions and most mid-air collisions.

Certainly could still be terrorism, suicide, and major flight control issues.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 159):There are non-explosive failure mechanisms that could conceivably result in a sudden in-flight breakup, such as an un contained engine failure that severs a key structural member such as a wing spar or fuselage keel beam.

Quoting Toiyabe (Reply 114):I am somewhat certain a MAD array as fitted to the P-3C will not be very helpful in this instance, as there is not enough ferrous material on the aircraft to be detected with certainty.

Or, at least that's what the ASW specialist/former Orion commander just told me.

Possibly. But I don't know if it can be ruled out. Could be worth a try.

"OK, so the P-3’s mad would have limited utility. If they localized the crash site and there were big enough pieces left, it could confirm the presence of a magnetic disturbance. However, a lack of a mad hit doesn’t “clear” an area of wreckage, nor does a hit mean there is wreckage there."

Very tragic and upsetting story of this MH370...been reading and listening all day about it now.

It may sound stupid but what if pilots might have made an attempt to speak to ATC? May be we don't know full details yet..interrogation with ATC people will give some more idea may be? Offcourse FDR and CVR will give more clues, just hope they find debris and these 2 things asap.

"OK, so the P-3’s mad would have limited utility. If they localized the crash site and there were big enough pieces left, it could confirm the presence of a magnetic disturbance. However, a lack of a mad hit doesn’t “clear” an area of wreckage, nor does a hit mean there is wreckage there."

I agree. That's why I said side-scanning sonar would be more effective. I am just saying that in this case you've gotta try anything. You can sweep an area quickly with MAD to give you a preliminary search, but likely have to follow up with sonar.

With a MAD array you just know something may or may not be there. With sidescan, you can get a rudimentary image of what is there.

I agree. I have heard "aviate, navigate, communicate" here on A.net, but unless things evolve rapidly, which seems to have been the case here, I have a hard time believing that pilots wont try to communicate their emergency. Remember BA38 at LHR? Even though they lost their engines at a critical point, they were able to send a short message to ATC.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 102):Quoting lh648 (Reply 99):And IIRC, the first part found was an vertical stabilizer, which is composite on A330 and can float, while 777 have aluminum one. Correct.Aside from the vertical stabilizer, most of the debris were small parts of the airplane but one of the galley's was found intact as well.

No, incorrect. While it is true that the A330 vertical is made of composite, the 777 vertical is not made of aluminum. The 777 vertical is composite, similar to that of the A330.

Since the composite is denser than water, a floating vertical would need to be sufficiently intact for water tight internal structural voids to exist.

Galley structures are not subject to the same loads as verticals and can be made from foam core material less dense than water, allowing it to float.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 193):I agree. I have heard "aviate, navigate, communicate" here on A.net, but unless things evolve rapidly, which seems to have been the case here, I have a hard time believing that pilots wont try to communicate their emergency. Remember BA38 at LHR? Even though they lost their engines at a critical point, they were able to send a short message to ATC.

I don't spend a huge amount of time on A.net, but I've definitely seen the "aviate, navigate, communicate" discussion quite a bit.

I've read a few commercial pilots here say numerous times that it is not a strict hierarchy from left to right. It's a balancing of all 3 concurrently. If... if things happened so fast that there was no time to communicate (or ability, if all communications were cut somehow), it must be pretty darn bad.

I thought this was resolved - as in last contact was about 40 minutes into the flight, as the 2hrs was the time when Malaysian was notified their plane was missing.

Quoting Web500sjc (Reply 157):AF 477 never had a distress call - and we know there was no catastrophic failure

Oh, but there was a catastrophic failure - in airmanship!

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 159):an un contained engine failure that severs a key structural member such as a wing spar or fuselage keel beam.

I agree it's possible, but also happened afaik only once before (El Al Cargo AMS). Engines are designed to break off and not take along with them major wing or other structural components. Now, I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's very improbable.

Your first indication should have been the flight number. Flight numbers north of 2000 are usually going to be code share flights. Especially by the time you hit 8000 or 9000.

And how many passengers do you think know that? Have seen several times how passengers are confused about code shares. Clearly remember a few months ago a couple at TBIT (LAX) looking for their Iberia flight to JFK. Had to tell them they were flying with AA out of T4.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 159):Maybe that's a clue that there wasn't a big fireball. There are non-explosive failure mechanisms that could conceivably result in a sudden in-flight breakup, such as an un contained engine failure that severs a key structural member such as a wing spar or fuselage keel beam.

One thing that got into my head is that perhaps MH370 could have been brought down by something like a meteor. The planet gets hit every day by them even though most of them are small they are traveling 20,000 miles an hour or faster.

This is very unlikely but it is possible. If you recall there was one recorded in Russia relatively recently and that didn't hit anything but could easily rip a 777 in half.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 198):I thought I just read that the nearest plane was too far away? Reply 170 gives it as 86nm.

He doesn't say it was too far away, however one has to consider whether the pilot, from his vantage point, could have seen it if he was looking outside and in the right direction.

One day, during day light and when airliners produce contrails, try following one ( a wide-body is easier) with your naked eyes as far as you can see it and check on FlightRadar how far away it is from you.

Probably because it didn't happen. Any frequency the aircraft would transmit on should be monitored by either ATC or other aircraft (or perhaps both). Also, I would expect that a US facility would get word out significantly faster than that. That report strikes me as a piece of false information.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 199):One thing that got into my head is that perhaps MH370 could have been brought down by something like a meteor. The planet gets hit every day by them even though most of them are small they are traveling 20,000 miles an hour or faster.

This is very unlikely but it is possible. If you recall there was one recorded in Russia relatively recently and that didn't hit anything but could easily rip a 777 in half.

With regard to having time to send a message or talk to ATC, a good example of a catastrophic failure at cruise where the pilots DID communicate with ATC is Aloha 243. The first officer communicated their intent to descend and attempt to land on Maui while the captain was descending to lower altitude.

An Auckland-bound jetliner came close to being hit by blazing pieces of what is thought to have been a Russian satellite hurtling into New Zealand airspace.

However, Nasa said today it was convinced the flaming objects were not from a satellite and space experts said it could have been a meteor.

Aviation authorities are investigating how flaming wreckage thundered close to the Lan Chile Airlines Airbus A340 flying from Santiago, Chile, on Tuesday night.

The debris was so close to the aircraft that the pilot could hear the roar it made as it broke the sound barrier.

The alarmed Airbus pilot notified Auckland Oceanic Centre after seeing flaming space junk shooting across the sky about five nautical miles in front of and behind his plane at about 10pm.

At the aircraft's cruising speed of 880km/h it was within about 40 seconds of a potential catastrophe.

According to a planespotter who was tuning in to a high-frequency radio broadcast at the time, the pilot "reported that the rumbling noise from the space debris could be heard over the noise of the aircraft".

Quoting B747forever (Reply 193):I agree. I have heard "aviate, navigate, communicate" here on A.net, but unless things evolve rapidly, which seems to have been the case here, I have a hard time believing that pilots wont try to communicate their emergency. Remember BA38 at LHR? Even though they lost their engines at a critical point, they were able to send a short message to ATC.

I agree. I would imagine that if they know something was very wrong they would communicate it if they could.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 209):The alarmed Airbus pilot notified Auckland Oceanic Centre after seeing flaming space junk shooting across the sky about five nautical miles in front of and behind his plane at about 10pm.

When you stop and examine it that is still pretty far away. Yes, it could happen, but I would put this in one of the least likely causes.

If in fact the distress call is bogus, it still leaves a bomb as the most likely scenario, although perhaps a little less likely. But the oil slick definitely means that at least the wings were intact when it hit, and the length of the slick indicates to me that it was still traveling fast horizontally when it hit, so that implies that it was under some semblance of control.

"Another U.S. law enforcement official said Interpol keeps a registry of lost and stolen passports that major international airlines routinely check before passengers board a flight. It would be unusual for a passenger on a major airline such as Malaysian Airways to be able to board using a stolen passport, he said."

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 176):A small bomb carried into the passenger compartment could cause enough damage to cripple the plane, but not produce a fireball.

Pan Am 103 was blown up by a bomb inside a small radio and it created a huge fireball.

The fireball was not the result of the initial explosion, but the breakup that happened within 4 seconds of the initial blast. As the plane broke up, the fuel hit the atmosphere and aerosolized, then ignited.

It's kind of academic right now as regardless, it seems no one saw any fireball. But there could have been one; it just might not have been seen. It's still possible that the authorities have not found all potential witnesses, though; when there's a possible explosion at 35,000 feet, that's a huge radius of potential witnesses. If the weather was clear, that could be hundreds of miles in any direction with potential witnesses.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 213):"Another U.S. law enforcement official said Interpol keeps a registry of lost and stolen passports that major international airlines routinely check before passengers board a flight. It would be unusual for a passenger on a major airline such as Malaysian Airways to be able to board using a stolen passport, he said."

But it clearly happened.

Quoting hivue (Reply 214):It indicates to me that the current moved and dispersed the "slick" over the course of several hours.

That is another possibility, and perhaps a better explanation than mine. The fact that it is two separate slicks says to me that they come from the two wings, which is why I speculated that the plane was still moving horizontally when it hit. If the current was responsible for its length I would have thought that the two slicks would have merged.

There was also the Air China 757 which suffered nose cone damage after colliding with a 'foreign object' at 26,000ft last year. There were suggestions at the time that the 757 might have collided with a drone...

I agree that a bomb would be more likely. However, I have departed KL on MH international flights more than a dozen times and there has been additional security / bag checks to pass through prior to boarding the aircraft each time so I would be surprised if a pax managed to get a bomb past all the security there unless their security procedures have changed in more recent times.

Yes. However in this case the pax boarded in Malaysia, which also requests ID.

Quoting lh648 (Reply 101):Quoting tortugamon (Reply 104):
Also, daily beast has a good article about how we still use 1960s technology (black boxes) when newer technology exists.

There's simply not enough satcom capacity in the world if ALL airliners will transmit ALL the data back to HQs.

Indeed, and recorders today are rather different from ones in the 60s.

From previous thread:

FlyingTurtle: The ELT uses VHF only? Answer: The newer ones also use satcom on 406MHz.

Flyingturtle: How is the ELT activated? By a loss of electricity, and then the ELT uses its own battery? Answer: Loss of power, G-force (impact) or switch in the cockpit. Internal battery afte that.

na: Sure, but one wonders why a plane doesnt have an emergency button like any bank cashier has it, which is then automatically sending out a distress message. Or a device that in such case automatically starts radio transmission from the cockpit. I mean, that a latest technology airliner despite all the hightech on board can disappear for 20 hours without no one knowing for sure if it has crashed, kidnapped or landed somewhere else is unacceptable. Answer: An emergency button still takes time and more importantly mental capacity to use. In any case there is a button of sorts, the ELT switch.

Justloveplanes: What is the rate of change of altitude and velocity that can be inferred from the tracking map? Is the data there and is it commensurate with free fall or with some thing that has some kind of lift remaining as it goes forward? Answer: Transponder data is not like Formula 1 telemetry. It is not guaranteed accurate or gap-free. We can tell the plane changed direction and altitude, but it is hard to infer accurate numbers.

cx828: Why do they still use the MH 370 today to beijing, just departed and on the way to yesterday incident point, should't they change the flight number?? Answer: Changing the flight number on short notice would wreak havoc with existing bookings. In any case changing the flight number is by no means always done after an accident.

I agree that a bomb or intentional nose dive seem to be the strongest possibilities. I noticed one Ukraine citizen was on the manifest. Not saying it's odd, but seeing current events has me wondering. And recently the toothpaste scare. Hmmmmmm.

Quoting hivue (Reply 223):Does this mean data (ACARS) was received but it was not abnormal or does it mean no data at all was received?

he didn't seem clear at all when he answered the question. All he said was yes we have that type of system and no, we did not receive any abnormal data. I watched it live on BBC. The aviation authority probably is as clueless as we are, maybe more.

Actually I didn't know about this incident. Taking into account the number of daily flights all over the world and the fact that meteors, although rarely, still do penetrate the atmosphere from time to time, it was due to happen sooner or later.

Someone did suggest the "meteor theory" early in the first or second thread and we kinda did agree it's possible, but extremely remote. I would keep it that way for now, for the simple reason that the wreckage has still not been found.

But yes, in general, although probably in thousands or rather millions of decimal points, the possibility that a meteor hit the 777 does exist and is probable.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 218):na: Sure, but one wonders why a plane doesnt have an emergency button like any bank cashier has it, which is then automatically sending out a distress message. Or a device that in such case automatically starts radio transmission from the cockpit. I mean, that a latest technology airliner despite all the hightech on board can disappear for 20 hours without no one knowing for sure if it has crashed, kidnapped or landed somewhere else is unacceptable. Answer: An emergency button still takes time and more importantly mental capacity to use. In any case there is a button of sorts, the ELT switch.

I thought about this some more, and I really can't see the use of an "emergency button". If the crew is so busy with aviate and navigate that they don't have time for a mayday call, then they don't have time to press an emergency button either. Besides, what good would this button do them? Does it increase their chances of not crashing or making an emergency landing? Not really. All it would do is hopefully alert someone to the problem. This happens anyway when contact is lost or soon after. And if there is no one around to hear a distress call, such as in oceanic airspace far from other planes, there's no one around to hear an ELT or other emergency transmission either.

Having said that, the fact that the aircraft was at cruise and no mayday call was made, nor a transponder set to 7700, indicates that what happened was either so swift and catastrophic there was no time to react or so serious that the pilots were busy fighting all the way down like Alaska Airlines 261. (Yes, I know the Alaska Airlines 261 crew made radio calls but only when they seemingly had time to do so. They did not make any during the final plunge.)

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 215):
Pan Am 103 was blown up by a bomb inside a small radio and it created a huge fireball.

But that would have been from the fuel igniting. That is not a given; depending on the size of the bomb and its placement it could breach the fuselage but not the fuel tanks. I believe the bomb in PA103 was in the forward baggage compartment, and likely breached the center fuel tank, and hence the fireball. The existence of a large oil (fuel) slick says that the fuel did not ignite, and hence no fireball.

As to how the bomb (if it was a bomb) got on board, any competent terrorist can get by just about any security if he is determined enough. They will examine the existing security and figure out how to get something past it. There is always the possibility of cooperation of an employee. There is no such thing as foolproof security.

Maybe I've missed something. Has a "large oil (fuel) slick" actually been verified. I've just seen one photo from a long way off which a marine scientist on this forum has suggested is a cyanobacteria bloom.

If I see another article using a picture of a Malaysian A380 or 737, I think I'll go mad. This is so misleading and they can and should take the extra two seconds to do better for the readers they are informing.

Quoting milestones787 (Reply 232):
If I see another article using a picture of a Malaysian A380 or 737, I think I'll go mad. This is so misleading and they can and should take the extra two seconds to do better for the readers they are informing.

Crap coverage always comes up and the moderators have even addressed it. Yes, the press is not perfect. However most likely the readers can't tell the difference either, nor care. I know that doesn't make it right but we have to remember that we are a rather tiny minority which is actually interested at this level.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 217):I agree that a bomb would be more likely. However, I have departed KL on MH international flights more than a dozen times and there has been additional security / bag checks to pass through prior to boarding the aircraft each time so I would be surprised if a pax managed to get a bomb past all the security there unless their security procedures have changed in more recent times.

I traveled on MAS via KUL in January and February. I found security tight and as you have suggested, there was a further security scanning booth before entering the seated departure room at the gate. I doubt if something entered via hand baggage. If terrorists have found another way of getting an explosive device on board a flight, then unfortunately we are going to be lumbered with even further tightening of security with restrictions on what we can carry when we fly in the future.

As I stated way back in part 2 (so far back I cannot remember which part!), there was no separating of liquids however into clear plastic size restricted bags separated from hand baggage like we must do in the UK. Bottles/liquids remained inside hand baggage when put into x-ray scanners. The Philippines was the same in this regard. I don't know if this would make it somewhat easier to get liquids onto a flight out of Kuala Lumpur.

If indeed a viable explosive device brought down this flight, then I suspect an 'inside' job. This is why we need answers very quickly so that any possible person(s) involved can be neutralized before something further occurs. Although I could say more, I don't want to speculate any further on this matter as a deliberate act may not at all be the cause here.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 198):And how many passengers do you think know that? Have seen several times how passengers are confused about code shares. Clearly remember a few months ago a couple at TBIT (LAX) looking for their Iberia flight to JFK. Had to tell them they were flying with AA out of T4.

Sorry. Wasn't trying to imply the average passenger would know that. But I would think the average anet-er would know that, so it was more in response to the poster than the average passenger. I agree with you whole-heartedly there.

I don't give hypoxia much credence with current information. The aircraft would have been on autopilot in LNAV/VNAV. Even without pilots, it would have proceeded obediently along the route entered in the FMC. The transponder would have stayed on, allowing tracking over Vietnam and onwards, not to mention primary radar tracking. If the pilots hadn't responded to radio or datalink calls on control area handover, aircraft would have been sent up to intercept.

Speculation followeth:
The "mumbling" might indicate hypoxia. Speculating here, but the pilots could have disconnected the autopilot and initiated an emergency descent, but lost consciousness on the way. That might point at some issue with the cockpit oxygen system since if the were able to start an emergency descent they had to have put the masks on first or lost consciousness very quickly. Possible but doesn't seem very likely.
End speculation.

God Bless their souls, another plane tragedy with one of the most sophisticated Boeing jetliners in history...the 777. We'll have to wait until wreckage is found + the CVR and FDR boxes to determine what exactly happened. I'm sure Boeing, the FAA, and NTSB have been dispatched since its an American made airliner.

Going to sleep now (UK). Hopefully next day will bring news of discovery of crash area, and I'm sure this will be on part 5! I've read every single post on all four parts but they contain very little of consequence other than speculation. We're no further ahead thus far.

I've seen that report about "smoke" too, which makes absolutely no sense. Smoke both rises and disperses pretty quickly. As it's doing so, it's pretty easy to pinpoint its source. Smoke comes out continuously until it stops. Once it stops, it dissipates in the air. If there's enough smoke that they can actually detect it, then they should be pretty much right on top of the wreckage. If there's so much smoke that they're actually detecting it even though they're *not* close to the wreckage, then they should be easily able to trace it back to its source given wind data.

So unless I see within the next 30 minutes that they've found the wreckage by tracing the smoke, I'm pretty much discounting that report. Either there's no smoke, or there is smoke and it's from somebody burning fish carcasses on a fishing boat.

I'm a little bit behind here, but I fly this airway quite frequently (from Singapore) and as someone has mentioned, very common to be held down for long periods of time. Very rarely do you get a straight climb to cruise.

All along the east cost of Malaysia and south Thailand there are, what appear to be, thousands of oil platforms and squid fishing boats every evening. While the fishing boats may not have good communications, I'm surprised that one of the oil rigs wouldn't have communicated if it had been seen...it all adds to this terrible mystery.

Quoting acabgd (Reply 226):Actually I didn't know about this incident. Taking into account the number of daily flights all over the world and the fact that meteors, although rarely, still do penetrate the atmosphere from time to time, it was due to happen sooner or later.

Meteors hitting the earth are actually really common but I reckon most don't hit anything and are unseen. Furthermore even though there have been more planes in the air than ever they take up a very thin portion of the surface area of the planet and so do the areas where humans have settled.

Again I am not saying this is likely but when things like this happen but never rule out that it is possible that s*it just happens.

Quoting vietcolin (Reply 250):So far all fisher men in the region have well informed to participate in to SAR. Until now, no any fisher man report any thing about MH370, they saw nothing...from mid night yesterday until now..

This is a very interesting point... how could it be with so many boats in the area, nobody reported seeing anything?

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 255):Quoting vietcolin (Reply 250):
So far all fisher men in the region have well informed to participate in to SAR. Until now, no any fisher man report any thing about MH370, they saw nothing...from mid night yesterday until now..

This is a very interesting point... how could it be with so many boats in the area, nobody reported seeing anything?

"Many boats" doesn't mean a carpet of them. It was the middle of the night. While fishing boats often operate at night, the sea is a big place and an airliners is not very large relatively speaking. Unless there was an explosion with a flash, neither a breakup at altitude nor an intact plunge would have been particularly visible or audible unless an observer was close by and looking in the right direction.

This looks like pure speculation. Unless that flight can surrender its black box over to authorities and those pilots submit for questioning and all this is confirmed openly to the media, it's all speculation.

The use of stolen passports by at least 2 possible passengers on this flight is very disturbing. I expect an intense investigation by Malaysian government officials along with Interpol, US-FBI, PRC, and others to figure out they got on the flight with them. The users may not be terrorists, more likely spies or shady business persons or criminals. I would assume the airport ID checkpoints would have digital video recorders to figure out likely users of these passports and how they got past security.

Some other thoughts of an aircraft related failure that could have caused sudden disaster:

Failure of a cargo door latch or hinge. We do have at least 2 major crashes and 1 near disaster (UA 747) caused by such door failures. At such altitudes, it could have caused massive decompression failures, or just tore the a/c apart. Although rare, it is a possibility.

Failure of an engine mount (ie AA DC-10 at ORD many years ago)

A massive electrical failure or a fire - ie: SR 111 - or related, a serious autopilot software or component failure. In the such cases, the pilots were going to concentrate on flying and shut down communications to the ground to deal with their problem. Sadly it could have been too little too late. While there should be backups, cascading failures could have made it impossible to recover in time.

It could be something as innocent as a pilot bumping accidently an autopilot function switch and failure of the PIC or FO to react in time before in an uncontrolled situation.

As an Austrian and Italian citizen you need a Visa to travel to China, which makes these fake travelers even more significant. They had to apply in person at a Chinese Embassy or Consulate. Either they somehow managed to pull off the identity scam, or the Visa was fake and they never intended to arrive.

I have a question, does anyone have a list or information on which large commercial aircraft has the best record on safety? I always thought the B777 had the best record, but since I've seen several news reports stating that the B777 is one of the safest, it made me wonder which aircraft has the title as the best record on safety.

Think simple 777 crew with highly inexperienced fo plus an abnormal situation, doesn't take much to cause chaos in a cockpit no need for bombs terror and structural failures a simple fault is enough...

This is what people miss... It's counter-intuitive to see and accept this, but yet, this happens more often than we're willing to accept.

Quoting 456 (Reply 138):BTW - besides AF447, are there more examples of planes which were missing for some period of time?

Indeed.. with simpler reasons that's so simple it's baffling (to the extent that some people refuse to believe it... basic human fallacy).

Quoting trnswrld (Reply 163):This Malaysian crash is just so mind boggling. As others have mentioned, no distress calls which would indicate it was catastrophic or atleast something going on to where pilots had no time to key the mic.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 193):I have a hard time believing that pilots wont try to communicate their emergency.

It isn't that mind boggling on the aspect of "disappearing". We had AF447, KI574, etc etc...

If the airplane isn't fitted with a warning/failure transmission through ACARS, we won't see any ACARS.
If sent, MH and other airlines can always opt for the warning/failure transmission to be sent through Satcom and not VHF, meaning we won't hear about it unless someone leaked the info out (as per the AF447 case).

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 211):I would imagine that if they know something was very wrong they would communicate it if they could.

As in the case of AF447... they didn't... by the time they did... they were swamped with their own problems.

This is jumping the gun. The omission of the possibility of no contact with none of those "catastrophic failure", does open the door for misleading the reader. The first 2 points in that link, is misleading... makes people think there's a conspiracy...

This is key. Had they been traveling to nations that did not require visas for their passports, there would be a good possibility that they were traveling on forged papers without malicious--rather, violent--intent.

The fact that they would need a visa makes this interesting. However, shouldn't MH have checked all their passengers' visas before letting them board?

Can somebody tell me what was the weather in that area where the plane missing? Heavy Turbulence maybe?

I am not so sure about hijacking. if it's indeed hijacking then the pilot will have all the time in the world to send message or at least tell us something before it went down. I don't even think a hijacker can enter a cockpit.

Quoting uberflieger (Reply 262):As an Austrian and Italian citizen you need a Visa to travel to China, which makes these fake travelers even more significant. They had to apply in person at a Chinese Embassy or Consulate. Either they somehow managed to pull off the identity scam, or the Visa was fake and they never intended to arrive.

Austrians and Italians, among others, can enter China through Beijing and a few other cities on visa-free transit status for 72 hours.

Quoting atnight (Reply 263):I have a question, does anyone have a list or information on which large commercial aircraft has the best record on safety? I always thought the B777 had the best record, but since I've seen several news reports stating that the B777 is one of the safest, it made me wonder which aircraft has the title as the best record on safety.

Lots of stats here http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/ but "safest airliner" stats per se do not have much value except for crap headlines. All airliners built in the last few decades are very safe as designed and built. The variables that make flights more or less safe are mainly to do with crew, operational procedures, maintenance and so forth. To give an extreme example, I'd trust a BA or CX crew with a DC-3 more than I'd trust an couple of newbie pilots with a 777. It's not the plane itself that makes things safe.

Two other problems with the statistics:
1. There are so few accidents that it does not add up to a statistically significant number. Thus you can't draw many valid conclusions except to say that commercial aviation as a whole is very safe.
2. Accidents are very far from identical, so lumping them together per airliner does not make a lot of sense.

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 268):Can somebody tell me what was the weather in that area where the plane missing? Heavy Turbulence maybe?

All I've read seems to have said the weather was fine. It is not storm season.

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 268):I am not so sure about hijacking. if it's indeed hijacking then the pilot will have all the time in the world to send message or at least tell us something before it went down. I don't even think a hijacker can enter a cockpit.

There are many possibilities. For example, and of course this is just blue-sky spitballing, what if one of the crew was the hijacker?

It was posted somewhere in one of the earlier threads, but weather in the area was clear at the time the flight lost contact. I don't believe there was mention of turbulence from other aircraft in the area either.

Quoting uberflieger (Reply 262):As an Austrian and Italian citizen you need a Visa to travel to China,

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 266):This is key. Had they been traveling to nations that did not require visas for their passports, there would be a good possibility that they were traveling on forged papers without malicious--rather, violent--intent. The fact that they would need a visa makes this interesting. However, shouldn't MH have checked all their passengers' visas before letting them board?

FYI, it has been posted that Italians and Austrians (besides some other nationalities) do not need visas to enter China if they're in transit.
It's possible that they were using PEK as a connection point to somewhere else, and not as a final destination.

"In case of a water landing, your seat cushion may be used as a flotation device". If MAS370 had disintegrated in midair or on impact, it would seem the Gulf of Thailand would be littered with seat cushions. So what happened to that plane? ATC says radar logs showed a rapid descent, which suggests the plane was at least mostly intact (or in large chunks). So did they shut off all transponders and radios, dive down below radar coverage, dump enough fuel to make a bit of a slick on the water and make for parts unknown, over the South China Sea?

No ELT, No wreckage, and they can't find any trace of a plane in water that is shallower than both the wingspan and fuselage length of a 777. Any decent ASW aircraft would have been able to pick up a 777-sized chunk of metal.

Quoting CyberEntomology (Reply 274):"In case of a water landing, your seat cushion may be used as a flotation device". If MAS370 had disintegrated in midair or on impact, it would seem the Gulf of Thailand would be littered with seat cushions. So what happened to that plane? ATC says radar logs showed a rapid descent, which suggests the plane was at least mostly intact (or in large chunks). So did they shut off all transponders and radios, dive down below radar coverage, dump enough fuel to make a bit of a slick on the water and make for parts unknown, over the South China Sea?

No ELT, No wreckage, and they can't find any trace of a plane in water that is shallower than both the wingspan and fuselage length of a 777. Any decent ASW aircraft would have been able to pick up a 777-sized chunk of metal.

But how/where does one land and hide a 777 without someone knowing?

The whole thing is very bizarre.

It may just be that the sea is large and a plane is comparatively small, but you are right that we're not talking half the Atlantic.

Your diversion scenario brings up memories of Tintin's Flight 714 to Sydney, which as you might recall was even set in the region. But in that case, where is the secret island base? It does seem rather "out there" as theories go but at this point anything is possible I suppose.

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 266):However, shouldn't MH have checked all their passengers' visas before letting them board?

Do airlines actually verify Visas? I have no idea. I always assumed once the agent confirms the stamp in your Passport it's a go.

Of course there is a chance both Passports had a Chinese Visa when they were stolen, but somehow I think that's very unlikely and these guys never intended to arrive in Beijing. What are the chances a flight having more than 1 traveler with a fake identity on board?

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 268):Can somebody tell me what was the weather in that area where the plane missing? Heavy Turbulence maybe?

The weather around here has been pretty much spectacular for the last month or so. There definitely wouldn't have been any thunderstorms and I would be doubtful of any turbulence.

I know that the ocean is big and planes are small, but if you saw the number of fishing boats and oil rigs down there off the coast of Malaysia/Thailand, it would be hard to believe anything could get by unnoticed.

Quoting CyberEntomology (Reply 274):"In case of a water landing, your seat cushion may be used as a flotation device". If MAS370 had disintegrated in midair or on impact, it would seem the Gulf of Thailand would be littered with seat cushions.

Quoting uberflieger (Reply 279):Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 266):
However, shouldn't MH have checked all their passengers' visas before letting them board?

Do airlines actually verify Visas? I have no idea. I always assumed once the agent confirms the stamp in your Passport it's a go.

They do. If a person does not have valid documentation on arrival, the airline has to pay to fly that person back.

Of course, the agent can also miss this detail and let a person through. And in any case Austrians and Italians do not always need visas for the PRC.

Quoting PilotRecruit (Reply 280): know that the ocean is big and planes are small, but if you saw the number of fishing boats and oil rigs down there off the coast of Malaysia/Thailand, it would be hard to believe anything could get by unnoticed.

At 1:22am the plane did not appear on Ho Chi Minh ATC- if I read this correctly, the plane did not report this ATC and transfer itself. Yet, at 2:41am the plane lost contact with Subang ATC, which is Malaysian. So, what happened between 1:22 and 2:41am? Why is the 1:22 am point important because the plane would have been on Subang ATC, no?

Am I missing something? Thanks and sorry if this has been posted already.

At 1:22am the plane did not appear on Ho Chi Minh ATC- if I read this correctly, the plane did not report this ATC and transfer itself. Yet, at 2:41am the plane lost contact with Subang ATC, which is Malaysian. So, what happened between 1:22 and 2:41am? Why is the 1:22 am point important because the plane would have been on Subang ATC, no?

Am I missing something? Thanks and sorry if this has been posted already.

I saw the same. I think this can be explained by the one hour time difference between Malaysia and Vietnam. 1:22am in Vietnam is 2:22am in Malaysia.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 277):Your diversion scenario brings up memories of Tintin's Flight 714 to Sydney. But in that case, where is the secret island base? It does seem rather "out there" as theories go but at this point anything is possible I suppose.

Quoting CyberEntomology (Reply 274):"In case of a water landing, your seat cushion may be used as a flotation device". If MAS370 had disintegrated in midair or on impact, it would seem the Gulf of Thailand would be littered with seat cushions.

The seat cushions don't have to be floatable if the aircraft has life vests. Any aircraft that crosses oceans is going to have the vests. So it is no sure thing that there would be seat cushions floating around.

Quoting uberflieger (Reply 290):Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 269):
Austrians and Italians, among others, can enter China through Beijing and a few other cities on visa-free transit status for 72 hours

You just buy a ticket and go? No bureaucracy?

Well, not much bureaucracy. It's a new rule since 2013.
- You must register with police within 24 hours.
- Stay in China has to be less than 72 hours.
- You have to have a ticket for the flight exiting China.
- Destination and origin cannot be the same.
- It can only be one of six airports.
- You must leave from the same airport as arrival.

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 287):At 1:22am the plane did not appear on Ho Chi Minh ATC- if I read this correctly, the plane did not report this ATC and transfer itself. Yet, at 2:41am the plane lost contact with Subang ATC, which is Malaysian. So, what happened between 1:22 and 2:41am? Why is the 1:22 am point important because the plane would have been on Subang ATC, no?

So they would have signed off with Subang ATC, and disappeared before checking in with Ho Chi Minh? Curiouser and Curiouser.

Starlionblue, I think this was all led by a mistake from the MHPR team (and we cannot blame them, for they must have been under so much pressure). The plane only flew under contact for 40 mins it seems. It was from 1241 to 0122 or so. The point and time when it vanishes from FR24 actually seems to be the point at which it happened. This fits with all the locations and rest of story.
The latest press release from MH corrects this.

Quoting uberflieger (Reply 279):Do airlines actually verify Visas? I have no idea. I always assumed once the agent confirms the stamp in your Passport it's a go.

Of course there is a chance both Passports had a Chinese Visa when they were stolen, but somehow I think that's very unlikely and these guys never intended to arrive in Beijing. What are the chances a flight having more than 1 traveler with a fake identity on board?

They do, as they would need to need to fly them back on their own dime if they are denied.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 261):The users may not be terrorists, more likely spies or shady business persons or criminals. I would assume the airport ID checkpoints would have digital video recorders to figure out likely users of these passports and how they got past security.

Do we know if they checked any Luggage?

If they did then perhaps they could examine any luggage screening that occurred.

Quoting uberflieger (Reply 262):As an Austrian and Italian citizen you need a Visa to travel to China, which makes these fake travelers even more significant. They had to apply in person at a Chinese Embassy or Consulate. Either they somehow managed to pull off the identity scam, or the Visa was fake and they never intended to arrive.

It has been mentioned but if you have a return or onward for certain cities in China and have a certain passport (IIRC EU is included) you can stay for 72 hours without a visa and PEK is one of them.

I have actually flown YYZ-PVG-SYD and didn't need a visa for China but do have a stamp for China in my passport. The immigration officer at PVG looked at my onward ticket and admitted me.

I would think this information is at least known that either Chinese visas were issued on these fake passports or that they had return or onward tickets to another destination. I reckon that the authorities and the airlines know the answers to those question and are investigating it now.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 271):I have a question, does anyone have a list or information on which large commercial aircraft has the best record on safety? I always thought the B777 had the best record, but since I've seen several news reports stating that the B777 is one of the safest, it made me wonder which aircraft has the title as the best record on safety.

That would be the A340 and the IL-96, both of them have suffered zero accidents involving fatalities IIRC, so statistically their total fatalities per flight hour is equal to zero.

Quoting uberflieger (Reply 279):Do airlines actually verify Visas? I have no idea. I always assumed once the agent confirms the stamp in your Passport it's a go.

Of course there is a chance both Passports had a Chinese Visa when they were stolen, but somehow I think that's very unlikely and these guys never intended to arrive in Beijing. What are the chances a flight having more than 1 traveler with a fake identity on board?

Yes, airlines do verify visas before a boarding pass can be issued but PEK has a 72 hour visa free policy as long as the traveller can present an onward ticket leaving PEK within 72 hours. And no, airlines don't usually verify if the onward ticket is genuine or not. A fake print out of the onward ticket will do the job.

I remember reading about it. My Chinese Visa has long expired and because I no longer do business there, never checked into it.
While this may eliminate my 'conspiracy theory' as far as the fake Visas go, but I do think it is no coincidence there was more than 1 Person with an assumed identity onboard.

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Reply 302):Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 271):
I have a question, does anyone have a list or information on which large commercial aircraft has the best record on safety? I always thought the B777 had the best record, but since I've seen several news reports stating that the B777 is one of the safest, it made me wonder which aircraft has the title as the best record on safety.

That would be the A340 and the IL-96, both of them have suffered zero accidents involving fatalities IIRC, so statistically their total fatalities per flight hour is equal to zero.

Malaysia Airlines has night Norwegian time held a press conference, but without being able to answer what the whole world now ask about: What happened to flight MH370, which took off from Kuala Lumpur Friday night bound for Beijing.

- We have not seen any sign of the plane, said Azhaddin Abdul Rahman, director of the Malaysian aviation authorities, the press conference at 02 Norwegian time.

See the timeline: This has happened

At 04 o'clock on Sunday morning Norwegian time reported Reuters news agency that the Malaysian authorities are now investigating the identity of another two passengers in addition to the two previously known that was not on board that had stolen passports. There shall be an officer in the security services in the country said this to Reuters.

Transport Minister confirmed that there are now four passengers examining whether've boarded the plane with fake passports.

We go through the whole passenger list, says Hishamuddin Hussein.

Hussein said at the press conference at 4:30 o'clock Norwegian time Saturday night, the American federal police FBI assists Malaysian investigators in their efforts to go through the identities and backgrounds of the names on the passenger list.

U.S. federal safety officials say that a team of experts are on their way to Asia to assist in the investigation.

Expert team includes investigators from the National Transportation Safety Agency NTSB, as well as technical experts from the Federal Aviation Authority and Boeing.

When the plane is found, the International Civil Aviation determine which nation will lead the investigation.

While stressing Malaysian Airlines that are doing all you can to help and assist the relatives. A team is sent to Beijing, where many of the supposedly deceased belonged.

It was Friday night that the message came that a passenger plane with 239 passengers had disappeared from the radar on the way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

With the exception of some oil slick off the coast of Vietnam, it is not found traces of the plane, which should have landed in Beijing on Saturday morning local time.

But even these plumes of oil can with certainty be linked to MH370, said Malaysian aviation authorities early Sunday morning.

Grab side flightradar24 showing the aircraft heading until it disappeared from radar. Photo: AP
Saturday morning it became clear that two of the passengers that are listed on the passenger list, not board the plane. Both had their passports stolen in Thailand during the past two years, writes the BBC.

One of them was the Italian 37-year-old Maraldi, who contacted his parents Friday to say he was not with the plane.

I know I'm going to be nitpicky, but... Is there a real Subang ARTCC/FIR or is it in fact Kuala Lumpur (WMFC) ARTCC/FIR?
Are the media confusing the location of the ARTCC with its correct name (e.g., like calling Aurora ARTCC when in fact it's Chicago ARTCC)?

I hope the remains are found today. The simple sight of them will answer or at least clear up many things. I understand that this may have been a terror act, but what worries me is: if it wasn't, what went wrong? Is it something with the 777? Will this crash reveal serious issues with parts as AF 447 did? There are a lot of these planes flying around, I hope whatever happened here is an isolated case.

While AF447 was rooted in equipment malfunction, this was not, per se, what brought the plane down. Pitot tubes had malfunctioned numerous times before but correct action on the part of the pilots meant it was a non-event. In other words, the pitot tube issue was not really making the plane unsafe.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 311):While AF447 was rooted in equipment malfunction, this was not, per se, what brought the plane down. Pitot tubes had malfunctioned numerous times before but correct action on the part of the pilots meant it was a non-event. In other words, the pitot tube issue was not really making the plane unsafe.

Agreed! But I think we can all agree that the "fix" made the A330 even safer, not leaving room for incorrect pilot action as in flight 447. I too think it's highly unlikely that a design or assembly problem caused this. Maintenance? Maybe. But we'll have to wait and see.

All these three are possible, but it seems strange that there has been nothing to show for it so far. An in-flight breakup or explosion at cruise would lead to a huge debris field. Given that according to some posters you can walk from Vietnam to Malaysia by stepping on all the boats and oil rigs (I may be exaggerating slightly), someone should have found something by now.

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 312):Pilot hijacking is not possible given the track records of both pilots.

Of course it is possible. Even discounting the pilots, the cabin crew has flight deck access. A determined pax might get access as well.

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 312):Do we know whether the plane went down intact or disintegrated over the air first?

Unknown. For that matter we don't even know if the plane has crashed in the ocean. It is possible, though unlikely, that it has landed somewhere.

Something I struggle with in a tragedy like this is what I hope they find.

Another poster stated that he hopes to God it wasn't an act of terrorism. I completely understand his thinking.

However, on the other hand I hope it wasn't found to be the fault of the 777. So I'm torn between the fact that I hope our security system is robust enough to prevent an act of terrorism, but I also hope that the airplane, pilot training and maintenance was also not found to be the fault. So I'm not sure which way I hope is found to be the cause.

Obviously, I wish to heck it hadn't happened at all, but I'm never sure what outcome I hope for when the investigation is finished.

Or if you are going with ill intent, you can check in with MH and no Chinese visa, and make up a story/ fake internet printout that you are continuing on another airline to, say ICN. Immigration official may scrutinize the printout. But the gate agent will just see the EU passport and allow boarding.

just speculatio...outside CFIT and WX, I think everything is on the table.

A lot of people are pointing at a sudden catastrophic event like EXPLOSIVE...I have read 2 posts about hypoxia and how in that scenario the crew may have tried rapid descent - and in the process lost consciousness. Could this scenario be taken slightly further...

The Egyptair cockpit fire involving their 777-200ER (SU-GBP) stemmed from electrical fault with a supply hose in the cockpit crew oxygen system. The aftermath video seemed quite chaotic. Video link is below. Is it possible that similar cockpit situation forced the crew to try to go for a lower altitude while battling loss of oxygen cockpit fire, rendering them unable to make a mayday call???

I didn't think it was all that strange in the beginning (well, except that crashes in general are rare) but it is starting to get a little weird, especially now that we seem to have four passengers with stolen passports, all with tickets sold by China Southern, and no wreckage whatsoever. I'm pretty sure that at this point after AF447, we at least had floating debris. And that was in the middle of the ocean, not a shallow sea with a lot of fishing boats around and a lot of people looking along the flight path.

I still think an accident is a lot more likely, but it's just a strange set of coincidental events. Then again, most accidents are.

Quoting henkita217 (Reply 315):9M-MRO was only 11 year young. Planes aren't design to break apart, just like that. Otherwise, a certificate of air unworthiness would apply to 60% of metals flying around the world.

While age plays a major part in fatigue, in-flight breakups and the like have been precipitated by incorrectly repaired damage, for example JAL123 and China Airlines 611.

Quoting turjo101 (Reply 318):A lot of people are pointing at a sudden catastrophic event like EXPLOSIVE...I have read 2 posts about hypoxia and how in that scenario the crew may have tried rapid descent - and in the process lost consciousness. Could this scenario be taken slightly further...

The Egyptair cockpit fire involving their 777-200ER (SU-GBP) stemmed from electrical fault with a supply hose in the cockpit crew oxygen system. The aftermath video seemed quite chaotic. Video link is below. Is it possible that similar cockpit situation forced the crew to try to go for a lower altitude while battling loss of oxygen cockpit fire, rendering them unable to make a mayday call???

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=212708858781263

Very interesting scenario. In a similar vein, I recall the UPS flight 6 accident in the middle east a few years ago where there was a cargo fire. The captain's oxygen system malfunctioned and he lost consciousness after getting up to get another source.

The only thing that doesn't make sense for a terrorism attack is that no org. has claimed responsibility. The whole point of a terrorist org. is to terrorize, thus make a claim on their attack. So far no org. (as far as I know or heard on the news) has done that.

Quoting wxmeddler (Reply 322):
The only thing that doesn't make sense for a terrorism attack is that no org. has claimed responsibility

I pointed out in one of the earlier threads that many large-scale terrorist attacks are never claimed by anybody. You don't need to claim responsibility to terrorize; you just need it to be known that it *was* terrorism, which it will be if that's the case. All claiming responsibility does is give the public someone to focus their anger on. What terrorists want is for the government to be the focus of the public's anger for their failure to protect.

There's nothing about a lack of a responsibility claim that makes it less likely that this is terrorism.

Quoting timpdx (Reply 317):Or if you are going with ill intent, you can check in with MH and no Chinese visa, and make up a story/ fake internet printout that you are continuing on another airline to, say ICN. Immigration official may scrutinize the printout. But the gate agent will just see the EU passport and allow boarding.

I think the check-in agents are able to check if an onward ticket even on another airline with no relationship is legitimate or not. It is in an airline's interest to do this for a country like China because if that person is not admissible the airline that got them there assumes the liability to return them.

If they do not see a Chinese visa then they would investigate why (ie return under 72 hrs or onward ticket) or not let them on the plane.

Quoting desh (Reply 310):Anyone know what the history is as far as terrorist org taking "credit" for their acts ? Seems to me someone would have stepped up and claimed responsibility for it if that were the case by now, if that were the case ?

Though I think this is an accident, and agree that all signs point to an aircraft loss, I can't help but have a feeling that it's still intact. Not to stir the conspiracy theory pot, but the worst thing you can do when negotiating with terrorists is give them worldwide press coverage. There is one region very close by which has very recently experienced terrorism and insurgency: Southern Thailand.

And then I do a reality check and look at the facts: There is a missing plane with hundreds of people onboard. There are two - four pax with stolen passports onboard who - playing devil's advocate here - have nothing to do with this. And no mayday call or other indication there is anything wrong (and reports of contact with other A/C in the area for only a short time after last radar contact. Sounds like some sort of catastrophic failure to me.

I hope we may have a resolution soon, and remain hopeful that the occupants are safe.

Debris looks kinda uniform, but that could be because those are the parts of the plane that float...could be seat cushions like suggested earlier....or some sort of cargo lost overboard like happens on ships pretty regularly. Too many objects to be seat cushion now that I look at it again, but certainly could be broken up insultion. Hard to tell scale.

Due to length this thread will be locked down for further contributions. All posts added after the thread lock will be removed for housekeeping purposes only. Please feel free to continue your discussion in part 5 which is available here: